The international human rights regime has come under intense criticisms for its failure to punish violators of human rights and ensure compliance from all actors. It is argued that until there are serious consequences to violations, states won’t comply with human rights because there is nothing to force them to. The human rights regime came into being in the aftermath of the Second World War which had claimed millions of human lives and undoubtedly exposed the destructive nature of unchecked human aggressions towards one another. Hence, a Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was made by states with the intent to forestall future acts of aggressions and to promote the spirit of brotherhood: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood” (Donnelly, p. 6). Under the rubric of UDHR are two broad categories, the civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. Civic and political right protects the right to life, the security of person, conscience, liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, civic participation, and expression. The economic, social, and cultural right protects the right to an adequate standard of living, social security, work, leisure, education, paid vacation and healthcare.
In my short essay, I disagree with the assertion that “Until there are serious consequences to violations, states won’t comply with human rights because there is nothing to force them to.” I argue that there are hard mechanism approaches to force compliance – the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN Security Council (UNSC). Next, I argue why current approaches are not working as intended....
... middle of paper ...
...e.
My proposed solution to the problem of non-compliance is that world leaders must eliminate politics from the international human rights regime. Politics is the bane of the regime. What is needed from all actors is consistency in the implementation of sanctions; the attitude by which states pick and choose whom to punish or spare must be discouraged. The human right regime cannot work by itself; it must be made to work through the generous cooperation of all, especially the world superpowers.
In summary, I have stated the hard mechanisms used by the human rights regime to enforce compliance. I have argued why those mechanisms are not working as intended and have offered solutions to the problems facing the regime.
In conclusion, the human rights regime can work through the collaboration of all actors, and the call for more punitive measures is unwarranted.
How much more do we need to do before we start responding to these legacies? Works Cited United Human Rights Council. United Human Rights Council. N.p., n.d. Web. The Web.
Sanctions do not exist to ostracize or punish, but rather they encourage a change of policy that leads to compliance with standards of international law. One of our goals is to change or destabilize the target’s government, which means to change its policies that involve human rights, terrorism, and nuclear nonproliferation.
In “Four Human Rights Myths” Susan Marks discusses several conceptions (or misconceptions according to her) about human rights. She begins her paper with a case study of the 2011 London riots and how distinctively different is their coverage by the British prime minister and two scholars.
There have been many humanitarians that strive to help countries suffering with human right abuses. People think that the help from IGOs and NGOs will be enough to stop human rights violations. However, it hasn’t been effective. Every day, more and more human rights violations happen. The problem is escalating. People, including children, are still being forced to work to death, innocent civilians are still suffering the consequences of war, and families are struggling to stay firm together. Despite the efforts from the people, IGOs, and NGOs, In the year 2100, human rights abuse will not end.
The issue of human rights has arisen only in the post-cold war whereby it was addressed by an international institution that is the United Nation. In the United Nation’s preamble stated that human rights are given to all humans and that there is equality for everyone. There will not be any sovereign states to diminish its people from taking these rights. The globalization of capitalism after the Cold War makes the issue of human rights seems admirable as there were sufferings in other parts of the world. This is because it is perceived that the western states are the champion of democracy which therefore provides a perfect body to carry out human rights activities. Such human sufferings occur in a sovereign state humanitarian intervention led by the international institution will be carried out to end the menace.
The idea of intervention is either favoured or in question due to multiple circumstances where intervening in other states has had positive or negative outcomes. The General Assembly was arguing the right of a state to intervene with the knowledge that that state has purpose for intervention and has a plan to put forth when trying to resolve conflicts with the state in question. The GA argues this because intervention is necessary. This resolution focuses solely on the basis of protection of Human Rights. The General Assembly recognizes that countries who are not super powers eventually need intervening. They do not want states to do nothing because the state in question for intervening will continue to fall in the hands of corruption while nothing gets done. The GA opposed foreign intervention, but with our topic it points out that intervention is a necessity when the outcome could potentially solve conflicts and issues. In many cases intervention is necessary to protect Human Rights. For instance; several governments around the world do not privilege their citizens with basic Human Rights. These citizens in turn rely on the inter...
Before any legislation could be implemented, a definition of human rights had to be compiled and accepted. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was approved in 1948 by th...
Since this is true, states are less restrained by the potential risk of humanitarian consequences of their actions. However, global human rights norms do make a difference, but to what extent? This article explains that the U.S violated the fundamental norm to not target civilians on multiple occasions during the Iraq war, however it was not blatantly done; the targeting was done indirectly, and more secretive. The ability for the United States to commit these international crimes discretely, without repercussions displays the level of influence the United Nations has. However, when civilian targeting is discovered this is the point where international humanitarian norms come into play; states fear being shamed or illegitimated. Since the establishment of an international court there has been a reduction in this type of crimes against humanity. Actions such as torture during war has been significantly reduced because of its
Since the beginning of American history, citizens who resided the country lacked the basic civil rights and liberties that humans deserved. Different races and ethnicities were treated unfairly. Voting rights were denied to anyone who was not a rich, white male. Women were harassed by their bosses and expected to take care of everything household related. Life was not all that pretty throughout America’s past, but thankfully overtime American citizens’ civil liberties and rights expanded – granting Americans true freedom.
Treaties are the highest source of international law besides jus cogens norms that have binding effect on the parties that ratify them.2 International human rights treaties rely on the “name and shame” mechanisms to pressure states to improve practices.3 However with “toothless” international human rights norms, moral coercion is not always effective. An empirical study conducted by Professor Oona Hathaway assessing the effect of human rights treaty ratification on human rights compliance, maintains in its findings that ratification of human rights treaties has little effect on state practices.4 States do not feel pressured to comply and change their practices, rather, signing treaties is “more likely to offset the pressure rather than augment it.”5 So, is it time to abandon human rights treaties and remit protection of human right to domestic institutions. Hathaway posits elsewhere that despite this treaties “remain an indispensable tool for the promotion of human rights.”6 Instead of getting rid of the treaty system, it is necessary to enhance the monitoring and enforcements mechanism to strengthen the human rights regime to ensure compliance.7 This article evaluates the extent to which international law serves as a useful tool for protection of human rights.
On December 10th 1948, the General Assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, although not legally binding, created “a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations.to promote respect for those rights and freedoms” (Goodhart, 379). However, many cultures assert that the human rights policies outlined in the declaration undermine cultural beliefs and practices. This assertion makes the search for universal human rights very difficult to achieve. I would like to focus on articles 3, 14 and 25 to address how these articles could be modified to incorporate cultural differences, without completely undermining the search for human rights practices.
Although, within the U.N. Charter of 1945, Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against ‘the territorial integrity or political independence of any state’ (U.N. Charter, art.2 para.4), it has been suggested by counter-restrictionist international lawyers, that humanitarian intervention does not fall under these criteria, making it legally justifiable under the U.N. Charter (e.g. Damrosch 1991:219 in Baylis and Smith 2001: 481). However, this viewpoint lacks credibility, as it is far from the general international consensus, and unlikely the initial intentions of the draftsmen of the charter. In more recent times, one can examine the emerging doctrine of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’(RtoP), which was adopted unanimously by the UN in 2005, as a far more persuasive example of modern legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. While not consolidated within international law, RtoP, which promotes humanitarian intervention where sovereign states fail in their own responsibility to protect their citizens, does use legal language and functions as a comprehensive international framework to prevent human rights
It is therefore no longer is it credible for a state to turn its back on international law, alleging a bias towards European values and influence. All that humankind now requires to bring about the elusive, but eternal, dream of perpetual peace is a global citizenship based on a strong commitment to principles of equity and democracy grounded in civil society.
Rights have been and continue to be violated across the world on both massive and miniscule scales. With rights violations being a constant issue, it is necessary, although it may be difficult, to determine which violations are human rights violations. Two aspects are crucial in this process: universality and paramountcy. Although practicability is also set forth as a criterion by Maurice Cranston, it is not as crucial when determining which acts violate human rights, or when they came into existence. This is due to the fact that when trying to distinguish between rights and human rights, almost all rights, not just specifically human rights, can, in some way, be practicable. For this reason, practicability, for the purpose of this essay, is
The role that globalization plays in spreading and promoting human rights and democracy is a subject that is capable spurring great debate. Human rights are to be seen as the standards that gives any human walking the earth regardless of any differences equal privileges. The United Nations goes a step further and defines human rights as,